CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Poppenberg v. Reliable Maintainance Corp.

In this negligence action, the plaintiff sued Reliable Maintenance Corporation for injuries sustained due to a defective elevator. Reliable moved for summary judgment, asserting an affirmative defense that the action was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, arguing that the plaintiff was either an employee of a joint venture involving Reliable and Suburban Maintenance Corporation or a special employee of Reliable. Special Term denied the motion, citing unresolved questions of fact regarding the plaintiff's employment status. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding no evidence of a joint venture due to the lack of shared profits and losses among the corporations, despite common ownership. The court also concluded that there were insufficient facts to determine control over the plaintiff for either joint or special employment, necessitating a trial for full factual development.

Workers' CompensationJoint VentureSpecial EmploymentSummary JudgmentNegligenceEmployer LiabilityCorporate StructureControl TestAppellate ReviewFactual Dispute
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mayfield v. Employers Reinsurance Corp.

Calvin A. Mayfield claimed a July 24, 1973, injury while working for Texas Tubular Products, which was appealed by their insurer, Employers Reinsurance Corporation. The case centered on the admissibility of evidence regarding Mayfield's prior injuries and the sufficiency of evidence to support the jury's finding that he was not injured on the date in question. Mayfield's treating physician linked his condition to the 1973 injury, while the defense introduced evidence of other injuries and testimony suggesting no injury occurred on July 24, 1973. The jury found Mayfield was not injured, leading to a take-nothing judgment, which the appellate court affirmed, finding no error in the admission of evidence or the jury's finding.

Workmen's CompensationAdmissibility of EvidenceOther InjuriesSole Producing CauseJury FindingSufficiency of EvidencePrior ClaimsSettlementsLump Sum RecoveryHardship
References
9
Case No. W2010-01496-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2011

Charles Roach and Joyce Roach v. Dixie Gas Company Ben Thomas Williams, Jr., Individually and as Owner and Manager of Dixie Gas Company Semstream, L.P. Santie Wholesale Oil Company, A Division of Blue Rhino Reliable Propane and John Does 1 through 10

Charles and Joyce Roach sued Dixie Gas Company and Benjamin Thomas Williams, Jr. for damages resulting from a propane explosion. The Roaches claimed numerous physical and psychological injuries, including PTSD, depression, hearing loss, and a speech disorder. While defendants admitted liability for property damage, they disputed causation for personal injuries, arguing the Roaches were not at the scene during the explosion. After a jury trial awarded zero damages, the Roaches appealed, challenging the admissibility of medical examinations, expert testimony, and deposition testimony, and the weight of the evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no error in the Rule 35 examinations or the admissibility of expert testimony, and concluded that material evidence supported the jury's verdict of zero damages.

Propane ExplosionPersonal InjuryEmotional DistressPTSDDepressionHearing LossSpeech DisorderMedical Expert TestimonyRule 35 ExaminationJury Verdict
References
38
Case No. 01-01-00749-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Danny R. Danny Collinsworth v. Eller Media Company

Daniel R. Collinsworth, the appellant, sued multiple appellees including Eller Media Company, Clear Channel Communications, Inc., and others, following a personal injury sustained from a 20-foot fall while working on an elevated billboard sign due to a broken ratchet strap. The trial court granted summary judgments in favor of the Media defendants, Reliable Electric Products, and Weisner Steel Products, Inc., based on arguments such as the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers Compensation Act, statute of limitations, and lack of evidence linking them to the defective product. Collinsworth appealed, contending that there was insufficient time for discovery and that he was prejudiced by a lost record. The appellate court found Collinsworth waived the discovery argument by not filing appropriate motions and that the allegedly lost record was, in fact, included in the supplemental clerk's record. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgments.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation ExemptionStatute of LimitationsProduct LiabilityBillboard AccidentDiscoveryEvidence SufficiencyTexas Civil Procedure
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Exxon Corp. v. Makofski Ex Rel. Makofski

Justice Charles W. Seymore's dissenting opinion criticizes the majority's approach to expert testimony reliability in a case involving plaintiffs and Exxon. Seymore argues that the majority erred by disregarding the pretrial Robinson hearing, where the trial court, acting as a gatekeeper, assessed the reliability of expert evidence. He emphasizes that reliability is a question of admissibility for the court, not a jury issue, and that evidence from the pretrial hearing, even if not re-presented at trial, should be considered on appeal. Seymore contends that the incomplete appellate record should have led to a presumption that the trial court's decision to admit the experts' testimony was valid. He concludes that the majority's outcome, which resulted in two plaintiffs keeping their verdict and four collecting nothing, stems from a misapplication of appellate rules and a failure to consider the full record pertinent to reliability, advocating for an affirmance of the trial court's judgment for all plaintiffs.

Expert Testimony AdmissibilityGatekeeper RoleRobinson HearingAppellate Record SufficiencyReliability of Scientific EvidenceCausation in Toxic TortTexas Rules of EvidenceJudicial Review StandardsDissenting OpinionTrial Court Discretion
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matt Dietz Co. v. Torres

This appeal arises from a judgment where a jury found that Matt Dietz Co. and Matt Dietz (Dietz collectively) negligently caused Modesto Torres' laryngeal cancer due to pesticide exposure, awarding Torres $6,000,000 in damages. Dietz appealed, arguing a lack of evidence for causation and negligence. The appellate court reviewed the scientific reliability of Torres' expert testimony, which relied on scientific studies and differential diagnosis. The court found no scientifically reliable evidence that pesticide exposure generally causes laryngeal cancer or that Torres' specific exposure levels were comparable to those in the studies. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a decision in favor of Dietz, concluding there was no evidence of proximate cause.

Pesticide exposureLaryngeal cancerNegligenceCausationExpert testimonyScientific reliabilityEpidemiological studiesDifferential diagnosisToxic tortAppellate review
References
14
Case No. 15-24-00118-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2024

Aspire Power Ventures, LP v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Thomas Gleeson, Lori Cobos, Jimmy Glotfelty, Kathleen Jackson, and Courtney Hjaltman

This case involves Aspire Power Ventures, LP appealing the dismissal of its lawsuit against the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT), Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), and various commissioners. Aspire challenged the legality of the ERCOT Contingency Reserve Service (ECRS) protocols, arguing they illegally restrain electricity supply, violate the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) by compelling generators to withhold power, and were implemented without adhering to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking requirements. The district court granted the defendants' pleas to the jurisdiction, dismissing Aspire's claims for lack of jurisdiction. Aspire seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, contending that the ECRS rules are invalid and cause substantial, irreparable harm to market participants and Texas consumers due to inflated electricity prices and increased price volatility.

Electricity MarketEnergy RegulationAdministrative Procedure ActPublic Utility Regulatory ActERCOTPUCTRulemaking ChallengeJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityEnergy Prices
References
7
Case No. 01-99-01345-CV; Trial Court Cause No. 95CV0220
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2002

Coastal Tankship, U.S.A., Inc. v. Florence Anderson, Administratrix of the Estate of Morris Anderson

This en banc opinion addresses a personal injury suit under the Jones Act and general maritime law, where Florence Anderson sued Coastal Tankships, U.S.A., Inc. for her deceased husband Morris Anderson's bronchiolitis obliterans organizing pneumonia (BOOP), allegedly caused by naphtha exposure. The primary issue on appeal was whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Anderson's medical expert, Dr. David Miller, to testify on medical causation. The court found that Dr. Miller's differential diagnosis could only reliably establish specific causation, not general causation (i.e., whether naphtha can generally cause BOOP). As the record lacked reliable general-causation evidence, the appellate court concluded there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and judgment was rendered in favor of Coastal Tankships, U.S.A., Inc.

Jones ActMaritime LawNegligenceUnseaworthinessMedical CausationExpert TestimonyDifferential DiagnosisDaubert StandardToxic TortBronchiolitis Obliterans Organizing Pneumonia (BOOP)
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Apresa v. Montfort Insurance Co.

Justice Larsen dissents, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the plaintiff the opportunity to reopen evidence for a "simple, technical point essential to his case." The dissent highlights the second prong of the standard for reopening evidence under Tex.R.Civ.P. 270, emphasizing that discretion should be liberally exercised to fully develop a case in the interest of justice. Justice Larsen applies the four factors from Hill v. Melton: decisiveness, no undue delay, prevention of injustice, and diligence. The dissent concludes that the proffered testimony was decisive, its reception would not cause undue delay, and refusing it resulted in injustice, particularly in a workers' compensation case where laws should be liberally construed. The dissent also argues that the majority misapplies the diligence requirement, which should apply after a party rests and closes its case, not during the case-in-chief, especially when evidence had not yet been closed.

Appellate ProcedureReopening EvidenceTrial Court DiscretionAbuse of DiscretionInterest of JusticeDiligence RequirementWorkers' Compensation LawTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureDissenting OpinionManifest Injustice
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2009

Ventura v. Ozone Park Holding Corp.

The Supreme Court order, which granted summary judgment to defendants 3 Kings Collision, Inc., Reliable Auto Center, Inc., and the Ozone defendants, and denied plaintiff's cross-motion, was unanimously affirmed. Claims against Reliable Auto Center, Inc. were barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11, as it was found to be the plaintiff's employer. The court determined that the plaintiff's work, removing a garage door motor, constituted routine maintenance and was not a protected activity under Labor Law § 240(1). Furthermore, common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against the Ozone defendants were dismissed due to lack of evidence of supervision, control, or notice of defects. 3 Kings Collision, Inc. was also granted summary judgment on the common-law negligence claim as there was no evidence of notice of a ladder defect, and as a gratuitous bailor, it had no duty to warn of a readily discernible defect. The court also providently exercised its discretion in refusing to strike 3 Kings's answer.

Summary judgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Workers' Compensation Law § 11Common-law negligenceRoutine maintenanceGratuitous bailorDuty to warnAppellate reviewMotion to strike answer
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 15,125 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational